familypediawikiaorg-20200214-history
Help talk:Articles
Making new articles First see if there is a red link with the name you want, somewhere in an existing page (eg ). Click it if there is. If none obvious, try this: Use subpage of your User page Add this to the top of your User page: Some of the articles I started or plan to start soon ---- Then on your new "Some of my page-starts" subpage you paste or type two headings: Planned and Started ; under the former you paste or type (in double square brackets) the page names you want, then save; any time after that, when ready to create the page, click the link and off you go. Next time you are editing that subpage, move links from the "planned" group down to the "started" group as appropriate (arranging in whatever order makes sense to you); the links to pages under "Planned" that have been started should be a different colour, which will make it easy to select them for moving down the page. Simplification Somewhere I've discussed this change with Robin, though apparently not on the article's discussion page. The idea was to make use of this page for creating articles more streamlined, and the point of the page more easily accomplished. The downside is that this required moving some of the explanatory material to a subpage, where it may be less obvious for newbies. A partial solution to this was to include a brief discussion of the purpose of the page at the top, above the bar as it were, containing a link to the Guidance page. Still thinking about how to make this work most efficiently, without loss of cues to newbies. Bill 23:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC) :I don't remember mention of a subpage but I do remember the gist of that discussion. I think the result included moving some stuff here (above) and some somewhere else. We have the conflict between letting people do what they like and urging people to make things easier and quicker for themselves and their relatives a few months down the track. Newbies can't appreciate all the timesaving that our standards are meant to allow. Phlox's recent concerns about searching for people's names have some validity (despite some red herrings) and support our concerns to encourage standards for the big potatoes such as page names. :An idea I thought of then, and now mention, is that the templates themselves could all be on a separate page, with a link to it near the top of "Help:Starting pages for people, ..." telling folks they can go straight to the templates but only if they : ::Have read all the cautions about standards and searchability; OR ::Don't give a hoot about whether their relatives will find their material :Robin Patterson 11:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC) :Now I see what Bill has done. Good (and excellent condensing of the length by putting that common data boldly above the non-blank formats) EXCEPT for the page name - it's not about places and surnames. So I've created an exact copy at the better-named . I suggest we remove the templates from the "original" - though I'd like to see the "Standard" one left there because it does have the elements we really want for future automation. The page can be fairly short with or without keeping one template: brief intro, with the same general idea as in my last paragraph above, linking to and to the /Guidance page. Robin Patterson 12:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC) I'm looking at other ideas for layout. Trying to find the right balance between simplicity of use, and something that lets newbies know they need to read the guidance first. Something that doesn't get in the way of an experienced user, but still helps the newbie. Bill 12:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Color balance Selection of colors for the input boxes needs to be worked at bit. The original colors were not effectively balanced; the current selection is more balanced, but some of the colors are too light. Bill 01:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Further refinement I've revised the intro to be a bit more assertive about taking a look at the guidance page. Eventually my intent is to add a small box on the side to contain links to input boxes for other article types that are less commonly required, but for which we'd like to encourage some standardization of input---e.g, references. I think we need to keep this page fairly simple and focused on the main article types (blank's and people articles) that people may need. If they have specialized needs for other types of articles, then they probably do not need the "fast track" type of help. The main purpose of having this link in the side bar is to expedite page creation---particularly for folks new to the site. Bill 14:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Requires overhaul This candy cane interface is both a visual train wreck, and confronts the user with needless complexity. I recommend it be overhauled. First off, In the context of a help article, we should not barrage the user with choices. Two choices would be best, but there should be 3 choices there tops. Something for someone who just wants a quick nice looking article fast (person infobox) and something that research genealogists would feel suits their needs (maybe bill's deal). That makes two choices. The third? Whatever you guys want. But AMK's Genealogy:Infobox Layout using Template:Person should be named the Standard Layout, and we should have no more than 3. We don't want to propagate a hodge podge of article styles. Other wikia's don't have so much trouble establishing a look and feel to their site, I don't see why this should be so difficult to us. Why should person infobox be the standard? Well aside from the simplicity of a fill in the slots form and the data declarative value, I don't understand why we should advocate the creation of pages that look like a memory dump that you get after a computer crash. Most folks are only interested in genealogy from the perspective of their own relatives, and reducing them to statistics does not make our site more appealing. Nothing is forcing them to contribute here- we have to compete if we want them to choose our site. One area where our site shines is the ability of folks to make highly polished pages that do honor to the memory of their relatives. Just take a look at the standard pages on the other wikis and compare to our so called "standard" format. Here's a people page for one fellow- w:c:dememoryalpha:phlox. Ok. Maybe you find this fellow more charming w:c:uncyclopedia:Richard M. Nixon, or the slightly more virile w:c:marveldatabase:Susan Storm (Earth-1610). Now look at our standard page output. Benjamin Clements Ridley (1876-?). Why should anyone put material to our site? Look at the pages on Ancestry and genealogics. The standard page looks like a Bank statement. No one wants to be turned into statistics, and that's what this layout does to folk's beloved ancestors. As for blank piece of paper choice? What's the point. That says- do whatever comes into your head- giving no guidance whatever. So why is it in help? They can do that now by hitting the edit button or clicking red text. [[User:Phlox|'~'' Phlox']] 17:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Please provide a clarification of why this page was locked :*18:48, 20 October 2007 WMWillis (Talk | contribs) protected "Help:Starting pages for people, places, or surnames" (edit=sysop:move=sysop) :The above action within one hour of my post Requires overhaul is not a welcoming and open attitude towards dialog in a community, but a raw and inappropriate expression of power. There have been no edit wars over this page, no vandalization. The wiki process of civility is to come to an agreement on the talk page regarding any contentious issues. The only justification for the lock appears to be an unwillingness to be open to an honest contest of ideas- not where the best ideas for the wiki win, but where the those with raw power are in a position to dictate which ideas win. Sure, they may be persuaded otherwise, (with the proper attitudes towards those in power), of course, also provided that they are in "the giving vein". (Richard III, act 4, scene 2). [[User:Phlox|'~'' Phlox']] 22:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Robin's overall response to Phlox's demand for overhaul Phlox has taken a lot of space with what is close to being, in essence, an expression of support for Bill's stated intention under the previous heading but verges on departure from "a welcoming and open attitude towards dialog" and is a "raw" and possibly "inappropriate" abrasive criticism of a page that many editors have worked on in good faith. The link to the polygamous Doktor Phlox leads to a "candy cane" page that illustrates nothing that isn't already available on the best pages of this wiki (eg most of the recently-created ones that use infoboxes). The other two outside examples aren't any better - (but I note with interest that Susan is in 23 categories; that's something to aspire to!). Putting up by contrast as an example of "our standard page output" a page that's less than two weeks short of two years old and was NOT created with our current standard model is unhelpful and could be misleading. Moving on, I propose that we put this discussion in a forum or two for easier handling of various sub-subjects: Forum:Improving the "people-page start page". Robin Patterson 23:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC) :This is a response which makes a case that we have some strong things to offer. We do. A page lock is an inappropriate response to criticism. It is not an expression of trust, but mistrust. An expression not in assuming good faith, but in assuming bad faith requiring pre-emption. :It is appropriate that the page lock be removed as an expression of mutual trust in the community. [[User:Phlox|'~'' Phlox']] 00:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Rules on locking pages Although there have been some postings regarding the issues of this page in a forum page and here, no response has been given for my request for clarification on why this page was locked. I quote from wikia central's page on Protection My emphasis on Admin powers are not editor privileges, but equal attention should be paid to the statement that admins should only act as servants to the user community at large. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding on the part of the sysop involved about what are the appropriate and inappropriate uses of a page lock. Or, perhaps there is a legitimate reason that falls under the above rules. It is certainly not obvious what that reason could possibly be. I think it is only fair to request (I have made no demands in this thread) a clarification of the rationale for the page lock, because the action is apparently outside what is acceptable use of sysop powers. [[User:Phlox|'~'' Phlox']] 08:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Name of page Should this page be renamed? It's basically for people pages only right now. Other starting pages, such as those for surnames and places, could be separate and have their own link on the navigation bar. -AMK152(Talk • 20:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC) :It has been renamed at least twice. The latest simplification clearly includes surnames and places and has no direct input for individuals. If we think of other types of pages that could be linked from it, that may be the time to rename it more generally as . Robin Patterson 01:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Now in 2015... Having recently tweaked the help page and read most of the above talk, I now feel that we can separate these pages a bit more. This one can be renamed something like "Help:Improving articles" and include things you do on the second edit of a page and after. The guidance subpage can concentrate on STARTING pages and have a shorter name that is appropriate and is easier to link to. Each page should have a link to the other near the top. Thoughts, suggestions, ...? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 08:28, August 15, 2015 (UTC)